# Vinod Kumar Chaudhary v. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 1
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-11
- **Case number:** Bail No. 529 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-chaudhary-v-c-b-i-s-c-b-lucknow-45842
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Criminal Law - delay in trial - Howsoever
grave may be the offence but if the charge
sheet is submitted and there is a delay in
proceeding with the trial unreasonably
resulting
into
incarceration
of
the
accused,
in
such
circumstances
the
accused may be fit for grant of bail for the
time being. (Para 34)

Despite the submission of charge-sheet in the
Court trial has not begun and even charge is not
framed against the accused persons. From the
grant of bail, it appeared to the Court that the
co-accused are within the reach of the court ans
subject to it's process, then also the trial is not
proceeded. (Para 33)

Where many accused serving in public service,
involved
in
offence
of
fraud
and
misappropriation
of
huge
amount
of
government money, every accused is similarly
situated, should not be proceeded separately. In
a case of present nature the applicant on the
basis of doctrine of parity should be considered
for grant or refusal of bail having regard to the
bail granted to the other co-accused either by
Special Court, C.B.I. o r by this Court also.
(Para 34)

Bail Application allowed. (E-10)
List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,906 of 48,299. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39906 for what follows._

7 All. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow
1
(2020)07ILR A1
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Bail No. 529 of 2020

Vinod Kumar Chaudhary ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna, Shivam Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.G.

Criminal Law - delay in trial - Howsoever
grave may be the offence but if the charge
sheet is submitted and there is a delay in
proceeding with the trial unreasonably
resulting
into
incarceration
of
the
accused,
in
such
circumstances
the
accused may be fit for grant of bail for the
time being. (Para 34)

Despite the submission of charge-sheet in the
Court trial has not begun and even charge is not
framed against the accused persons. From the
grant of bail, it appeared to the Court that the
co-accused are within the reach of the court ans
subject to it's process, then also the trial is not
proceeded. (Para 33)

Where many accused serving in public service,
involved
in
offence
of
fraud
and
misappropriation
of
huge
amount
of
government money, every accused is similarly
situated, should not be proceeded separately. In
a case of present nature the applicant on the
basis of doctrine of parity should be considered
for grant or refusal of bail having regard to the
bail granted to the other co-accused either by
Special Court, C.B.I. o r by this Court also.
(Para 34)

Bail Application allowed. (E-10)
List of cases cited: -

1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22

2. Bhagirath Singh Jadeja Vs St. of Gujarat AIR
1984 SC 372

3. Nimmagadda Prasad Vs C.B.I. (2013) 7 SCC
466

4. Gudikanti Narsimhulu Vs Public Prosecutor
(1978) 1 SCC 240

5. Deepak Subhash Chandra Mehta Vs C.B.I.
and anr. (2012) 4 SCC 134 (followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The present bail application is of
Vinod Kumar Chaudhary who is a coaccused in Criminal Case No.1426 of 2017
[C.B.I. Vs. Indrajeet Tiwari & Ors], Crime
No.RC0532014A0006
of
P.S.
C.B.I./SCB/Lucknow under Sections 120-B
read with 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
and 477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read
with 13(1)(c) & (d) P.C. Act, Section 66 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000
pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge, C.B.I., Court No.6, Lucknow.

2. This first bail application is moved
on 14.01.2020 by learned counsel Sri
Pranjal Krishna, Advocate who is in
assistance with learned Senior Designated
Sri Nandit Srivastav, Advocate. Copy of
the bail application has already been
provided in the office of Additional
Solicitor General pursuant thereto learned
A.S.G, Senior Designated Sri S.B. Pandey,
Advocate
in
assistance
with
learned
counsel for the Central Government Sri
Kazim Ibrahim, Advocate has put in
appearance to protest the bail plea.

3. On 27.01.2020, a counter affidavit
is filed by learned counsel Sri Kazim
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ibrahim sworn by Sri Vinay Kumar
Chaturvedi, Inspector, C.B.I, Special Crime
Branch Office Complex. Thereafter, a
rejoinder affidavit is filed on behalf of the
accused-applicant on 06.03.2020.

4. The bail application was listed
severally but the same could not be heard,
meanwhile due to Pandemic of Covid-19,
the State of U.P. including District
Lucknow gone under complete lockdown
and physical hearing in the courts was
suspended.
The
urgent
hearing
after
sometime was permitted through video
conferencing and at that stage on the
ground, the applicant is suffering from
Chronic Hapatitis-B, mention was made
before Hon'ble the Senior Judge on
06.05.2020
through
e-mail
on
the
prescribed website of the Court, the case
was then nominated by Hon'ble the Senior
Judge vide order dated 11.05.2020 to this
Court.

5. Heard learned counsel Sri Pranjal
Krishna, Advocate assisting his Senior
designated Sri Nandit Srivastav, Advocate
and learned A.S.G. Senior designated Sri
S.B. Pandey, Advocate assisted by Sri
Kazim Ibrahim, perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record as
contended by learned counsels the matter
appears to have initiated on the basis of two
public complaints which were received one
from Manoj Srivastav and another from
Vinod Jain, to the effect that huge amount
has been misappropriated in 27 Savings
Accounts standing at Lalitpur Head Post
Office under the Jhansi Postal Division in
U.P.
Circle.
During
the
preliminary
enquiry, it was found that one account was
written twice, 26 accounts were found
initially and an amount of Rs.16,15,600/-
has been found defrauded. On the basis of
report of said preliminary enquiry into
complaints, an F.I.R. was lodged and the
investigation proceeded. In investigation, it
was found that the applicant is a Postal
Assistant and he was found in conspiracy
with other co-accused though being a
public servant they committed criminal
breach of trust and thus withdrawn by way
of forgery, manipulation and falsification,
thereby made a loss to the State to the tune
of
Rs.3,11,75,845/-
and
reciprocally
obtained themselves illegal gain. They did
so by modifying the data entries fed in
computer and thereafter by deleting the
same. As such in conspiracy with each
other they destroyed the evidences of
electronic documents also.

7. The applicant has made Annexure -
1, the certified copy of the F.I.R. in
Criminal Case No. 1426 of 2017 under
Sections 120-B I.P.C. read with 201, 204,
409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) I.P.C.
and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d)
P.C. Act, Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 Police Station-
C.B.I./SCB/Lucknow, District- Lucknow.

8. In the aforesaid F.I.R. details of
known/suspected
accused
with
full
particulars is given. From perusal of which
it appears that including accused applicant
total six accused are named who are
respectively (1) Sri Indra Jeet Tiwari,
Postal Assistant, Account Branch, Lalitpur
Head Post Office. (2) Sri Shailesh Khare,
Postal Assistant, Saving Bank Control
Organization Branch, Lalitpur Head Post
Office, Lalitpur. (3) Sri Vinod Kumar
Chaudhary,
Postal
Assistant,
Counter
Clerk, Lalitpur Head Post Office (Present
applicant). (4) Sri Sunil Tiwari, Agent. (5)
Sri Anil Jain @ Anil Kumar Jain, National
Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office.
(6) Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings
7 All. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow
3
Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Lalitpur,
U.P.

9. The said F.I.R. against the accusedapplicant is registered on the complaint in
writing made by Sri Mahendra Kumar
Srivastav, Senior Superintendent of P.H.O.,
Jhansi Division, Jhansi addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.C.B.,
Lucknow on 20.08.2014 with regard to the
alleged fraud case of Lalitpur Head Office
of Jhansi Division in U.P. Circle. The
complainant
has
informed
the
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.C.B.,
Lucknow that pursuant to the two public
complaints namely of Sri Manoj Shivhare
R/o Nai Basti, Lalitpur and Sri Vinod Jain
R/o Ghanta Ghar, Lalitpur with regard to
misappropriation of huge amount in 26
Savings Bank Account (particulars are
given in the written complaint) standing at
Latlitpur Head Post Office under Jhansi
Postal
Division
in
U.P.
Circle,
a
preliminary enquiry was done. He further
informed that in that preliminary enquiry it
comes out that an amount of Rs.16,59,600/-
has been defrauded. He further informed
that the aforesaid two public complaints
have disclosed that through data entry
module, the entries of deposit were
modified, therefore, all the available
informations present in computers i.e.
backup, was preserved during preliminary
enquiry. As per departmental rules, the data
backup should be taken everyday while last
data backup was found of dated 08.6.2013,
after restoration of backup data dated
08.06.2013.
In
this
connection
the
preliminary enquiry further revealed that
the account numbers mentioned in the
aforesaid public complaints were checked
in
Sanchay Post
(A
programme
of
departmental Saving Bank). Out of 26
accounts, Pass books for only 5 S.B.
accounts were found available in the
Sanchay post and remaining 21 S.B.
accounts mentioned in the complaint were
shown in computer as "invalid accounts". It
was found that the said 21 accounts were
deleted from the system after withdrawal of
amounts. It was also pointed out in the
report of preliminary enquiry that all
aforesaid 26 accounts were again checked
in the system and they were found active
up to 08.06.2013 which indicates that these
accounts
were
deleted
only
after
08.06.2013. The said preliminary enquiry
report on the basis of which the F.I.R. was
registered
further
discloses
that
the
allegation made in said two public
complaints and also in the report of
preliminary enquiry, it is prima facie found
that there is a gang operating in Lalitpur
Head Post Office comprising Sri Indrajeet
Tiwari, Postal Assistant, Account Branch,
Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Shailesh
Khare, Postal Assistant, Saving Bank
Control Organisation Branch, Lalitpur
Head
Post
Office,
Sri
Vinod
Kr.
Chaudhary,
Postal
Assistant,
Counter
Clerk, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Sunil
Tiwari, Agent, Sri Anil Jain and Sri Manoj
Singhal, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur
Head Post Office.

10. The mode and manner by which
the aforesaid gang of accused persons
defrauded the huge amount of public
money is described in the complaint and
the report of preliminary enquiry that they
installed Data Entry Module in there
respective systems in Account Branch and
then Sri Indrajeet Tiwari and Sri Shailesh
Khare used the computer of account branch
to modify the deposit amount in the Data
Entry Module in the Post Office computer
record. Thereafter, they use to sent
someone at the counter to withdraw money.
At
the
counter,
Sri
Vinod
Kumar
Chaudhary, Postal Assistant use to help
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
them in taking withdrawal in huge amount.
In order to put a smoke screen over these
fraudulent withdrawals, this gang used to
take witness of above mentioned National
Savings Agent on the withdrawal vouchers.
On the basis of forged witness done by
National Savings Agent, Sri Anil Kumar
Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal huge amount of
money was misappropriated. It is further
complained that in this way they committed
fraud in more than six thousand entries and
crores of rupees have been defrauded by
their gang. The preliminary enquiry further
found that Data Entry Modules in other 32
accounts also fraud to the tune of
Rs.27,42,200/- have come to the notice
with a total amount of Rs.44,01,800/- till
10.06.2014. In the course of checking other
accounts as per ledger entries it was found
that from the backup data dated 08.06.2013
in respect of accounts fraudulent entries
were made by the gang using Data Entry
Module which were actually opened in the
name of various different account holders
mentioned against them. The amounts were
withdrawn by fake/imposter persons with
this modus operandi and huge some of
money were misappropriated, though the
actual depositor have not withdrawn their
amount. Their amount was fraudulently
withdrawn by the gang. It is further
mentioned
that
it
is
prima
facie
responsibility
of
the
counter
Postal
Assistant
and
Assistant
Post
Master
(A.P.M.) to check and verify the name and
identity of correct account holder which
was not done by the officials namely Sri
Vinod Kumar Chaudhary and Anil Kumar
Jain. The amount of aforesaid 32 accounts
is Rs.27,47,200/-, the enquiry report as
mentioned
in
the
complaint
further
discloses that National Savings Agent were
also involved in this fraud as it is evident
from the fact that amount of Rs.16,59,600/-
were credited into the Government account
by them namely, Sri Anil Kumar Jain and
Sri Manoj Singhal as per report of the Post
Master Lalitpur, Head Post Office. The
complainant
further
reveals
that
the
departmental
enquiry
reached
at
conclusions, the irregularity in Savings
Bank Accounts has been detected with
involvement of defrauded amount of
Rs.44,01,800/- by the aforesaid modus
operandi.

11. It is pertinent to note here that the
applicant challenged his prosecution in
criminal case no. 1426 of 2017 (C.B.I. Vs.
Indrajeet
Tiwari
and
Ors.)
detailed
hereinabove U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.8428 of
2018 moving Criminal Misc. Application
in the High Court, Lucknow Bench for the
relief of quashing the prosecution A coordinate Bench of this Court refused to
interfere vide order dated 10.01.2019. It
was requested by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the grievance of the
petitioner would be sufficiently met in case
bail application of the petitioner is
considered expeditiously in accordance
with law. The Court ordered "In view
thereof, it is provided that if the petitioner
surrenders before the Court below within
three weeks from today and applies for
bail, the court below will consider the
same, in accordance with law in view of the
observation made in the case of Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 328 (Supreme
Court). For a period of three weeks, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner. With the aforesaid, the petition
is disposed of."

12. The present bail applicant failed
to move the bail application within the
aforesaid prescribed time before Special
Judge, C.B.I. concerned pursuant to order
dated 10.01.2019 and he again moved to
7 All. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow
5
the High Court U/S 482 Cr.P.C. on the
ground that applicant is seriously ill and is
suffering from Chronic Hepatitis-B and
acute Jaundice, therefore, could not moved
the bail application within the aforesaid
prescribed time. He further prayed for some
more time. His application was allowed
vide order of the Court dated 18.12.2019.
The relevant portion whereof is being
quoted hereunder:-

"Time is extended by one week
only. In case petitioner surrenders before
the Court below within one week from
today and applies for bail, the Court below
will consider the same in accordance with
law in view of the observation made in the
case of Lal Kamlendra 2009 (3) ADJ 328
(Supreme Court)".

Pursuant thereto the applicant
moved the application for grant of bail
before the Special Court, C.B.I., Lucknow.
The occasion of present bail application
before this Court has arisen from the
rejection of the bail application by the
Special
Judge,
C.B.I.,
Lucknow
on
07.01.2020.

13. The applicant by filing his first
bail application before this Court has
submitted
that
he
is
in
jail
since
07.01.2020. In the affidavit filed in support
of the bail application it is stated that
pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 28.08.2014
wherein the applicant is accused along with
the other co-accused investigation is
completed and charge sheet is filed therein
on 30.06.2017 against him along with the
other co-accused for committing the
offence of criminal conspiracy through
breach of trust, cheating, forgery of
valuable
documents,
using
forged
documents as genuine and falsification of
accounts by the abuse of official position
etc., thereby causing an undue loss of
approximately
44,01,800/-
to
the
government exchequer and corresponding
wrongful gain to themselves under the
relevant Sections of I.P.C.

14. It is argued by learned counsel
that a circle level enquiry of this fraud was
conducted by Director Postal Services, the
report of the enquiry dated 08.05.2015
states the role of Mr. Mahendra Kumar
Srivastava (the complainant in present
case), the then Senior Superintendent of
Post Office, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. It is
alleged in this report that Mr. Mahendra
Kumar Srivastav (the complainant) is one
of the principle offenders of this fraud and
was having effective in departmental rules
of transfer and posting of employees or
officials and also manipulation of records.
He was placed under suspension by the
Postal Department.

15. The written complaint dated
20.08.2014 made by Sri Mahendra Kumar
Srivastav, whereupon on 28.08.2014 the
present F.I.R. is registered was submitted
on preliminary enquiry done by him on two
private complaints dated 04.03.2014 by Mr.
Vinod Jain and 05.03.2014 by Mr. Manoj
Shivhare. Learned counsel for the bail
applicant further drew the attention towards
the contents of aforesaid public complaints
that they were apparently against Mr.
Mahendra Kumar Srivastav himself along
with the other three accused. Even then he
was entrusted with the preliminary enquiry
which he did almost in five years and thus
save his skin, he fabricated the things
towards the accused applicant.

16. Learned counsel further submitted
that the charge sheet filed on 30.06.2017
itself shows the aforesaid fraud committed
by the officials of the Post Office including
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
present
accused-applicant
in
a
conspiracy along with other co-accused
holding the same post of Postal Assistant
and also making entries in the computer
and they are in a position to delete the
original date entry. Some of the co-accused
who are National Savings Agent were also
shown in the commission of offence under
conspiracy. As such each of the accused in
the present case shown equally involved in
the offence apparently have similar role as
alleged in the prosecution case. The role of
the applicant in the F.I.R as alleged is
merely on speculation, the evidence with
regard thereto is neither mentioned in the
preliminary enquiry report, FIR nor in the
charge sheet, therefore, prima facie the
role, complicity and involvement of the
accused in the alleged conspiracy is not
established.

17. Learned counsel further argued
that so far as allegation as to the offence of
forgery of valuable security and that of
cheating, dishonesty, inducing delivery of
property is concerned, the applicant has
neither forged nor destroyed any valuable
security, nor it is the case of prosecution
also, moreover, the bare perusal of the
charge sheet sufficiently shows that no act
of applicant can make him liable within the
scope of the above mentioned offences.

18. Learned counsel further argued
that there is no iota of evidence in the
charge sheet to connect the applicant with
the forgery of any document and therefore,
prima facie the prosecution has no material
to show the commission of offence by the
applicant-accused under Sections 467, 468,
471 of the I.P.C.

19. Learned counsel for the bail
applicant vehemently argued that the
allegation as to the obtaining unlawfully or
by any dishonest or fraudulent manner
undue gain causing loss to the public
money. It is also not prima facie
established from the prosecution case, as
out of the money defrauded, the applicant
has not received any amount in his account.
Learned
counsel
further
argued
the
applicant had ever been co-operative with
the Investigating Officer, he has completed
about four years service honestly and with
full dedication to the Postal Department, he
has to live life, which is expected to be
considerably
long,
therefore,
his
application for release on bail should be
considered on the aforesaid reasons.

20. He further submitted that not only
in
the preliminary
enquiry
and
the
departmental
enquiry
by
the
Postal
Department but also after the registration of
the F.I.R by the C.B.I., he had ever
attended each and every call of the C.B.I.
for more than five years, though he has
never been arrested. He further submitted
that he has been given in his petition U/S
482 Cr.P.C. by the Hon'ble Court two
times, order of stay of arrest in the present
matter, but even then he has never
absconded and always have submitted
himself to the process of the Court.
Pursuant to the order of the Court, he has
moved a bail application before the Special
Court of C.B.I. and meanwhile has always
been attending each and every proceeding.
Learned counsel further submitted that as
prima facie no offence is made out against
the applicant and in aforesaid offences, the
Special Court, C.B.I. has released on bail
the co-accused Shailesh Khare vide order
dated 24.01.2018 and Kalu Ram vide order
dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure No.9). Later
on the co-accused Anil Kumar Jain, Manoj
Kumar Singhal were also granted bail by
this Court vide order dated 17.07.2019
(Annexure No.10), therefore, he should
7 All. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow
7
also be released on bail so that he may be
able to put his defence properly when the
trial begins.

21. Learned counsel further argued
that despite the submission of charge sheet
on 30.06.2017 still the trial has not begin,
the accused is in Jail since 07.01.2020,
though he is suffering from serious ailment,
the Chronic Hepatitis-B and he is suffering
a lot in incarceration. Learned counsel has
made
Annexure
No.11
to
the
bail
application, the medical prescription and
treatment with that regard. Learned counsel
further submitted that the First Information
Report was registered on 28.08.2014, the
applicant complied with all directions of
the Investigating Officer and assisted the
Investigating Officer. During entire period
of investigation the applicant had cooperated in the investigation. During the
entire period he had never been arrested but
he never absconded from the process of the
investigation, he has no criminal history.
Relying on the judgment in case of
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2018) 3
SCC 22 and Bhagirath Singh Jadeja Vs.
State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC
372.
Learned
counsel
concluded
his
argument with a prayer to release the
accused-applicant on bail.

22. On the other hand, learned A.S.G.
has opposed the bail plea of the accusedapplicant on the ground that accusedapplicant
is
participant
in
criminal
conspiracy for withdrawing fraudulently
from the National Savings Bank account of
the depositors in Post Office which is
public money. The accused applicant along
with other co-accused has drained out a
huge amount of public money. Learned
A.S.G. further argued that it is clear and
evident that National Savings Agents were
also involved by the accused applicant and
his companions in the conspiracy to
commit the fraud. From the fact that the
aforesaid agents arraigned in the present
crime case have deposited Rs. 16,59,600/-
and the same have been credited in the
relevant
account.
The
said
National
Savings Agent are Sri Anil Kumar Jain and
Sri Manoj Singhal who are co-accused with
the present applicant and other co-accused.
Learned A.S.G. drew the attention towards
the role of the present applicant that he is
Postal Assistant and Counter Clerk, he has
duty
to
verify
the
person
seeking
withdrawal of amount and present before
him on the counter by documents like
K.Y.C., Aadhar, etc. The applicant illegally
omitted to discharge his duties acting under
under the conspiracy and let the withdrawal
done
on
the
forged
documents
by
imposters.

23. Learned A.S.G. argued that the
applicant being a public servant posted as a
counter
clerk
(Postal
Assistant)
has
committed criminal breach of trust by
accepting forged vouchers getting forged
witnesses and thus facilitated the payment
on withdrawal of the deposit in account of
Savings Bank. He further submitted that
during investigation it is implicated that the
accused applicant working as counter clerk
intentionally without identifying the real
account holders done the process of
withdrawal therefrom on the basis of
forged identity presented by imposters.

24. Learned A.S.G. argued that this
was role of accused participant in the
conspiracy and as such the applicant forged
more than 400 Savings Account and
withdrew amount from more than 100
accounts in aforesaid manner. Thereafter
the original data entry and accounts were
modified
and
deleted.
According
to
prosecution the fraudulent withdrawal of
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount was done from more than 169
National
Savings
Account
with
the
complicity and involvement of the accusedapplicant,
causing
the
loss
of
Rs.1,31,35,200/-, this is a huge amount.

25. He further submitted that the
applicant as it is revealed from the record,
was absconding and when on 21.03.2018
an N.B.W was issued, after a considerable
delay, when process was issued under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated
02.12.2019 of the Special Court and
enforced, he put appearance before the
Court. As such the argument of learned
counsel for the bail applicant is not true
that accused-applicant co-operated during
the investigation and he will ensure his
attendance during trial, as it is doubtful
from the conduct of the accused, therefore,
he should not be released on bail so as to
ensure the trial to proceed further.

26. After hearing the rival contentions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the record, it is clear that
prosecution case is with regard to the
fraudulent withdrawal from the National
Savings Account by the accused persons
who are public servants, posted in various
capacity
in
the
service
of
Postal
Department. A huge amount of public
money is drained out whereby there had
been a considerable loss of public money to
the Government and an undue gain to the
accused.
This
is
also
the
case
of
prosecution that the officials of the post
office namely Indrajeet Tiwari, Shailesh
Khare and the present accused-applicant,
Vinod Kumar Chaudhary were in collusive
concert and conspiracy with the co-accused
Sri Sunil Tiwari (Agent), Sri Anil Jain, Sri
Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent
and thus had developed a modus operandi,
wherein the amount deposited in National
Savings Account in post office by public
was used to have been withdrawn on
forwarding of other co-accused, putting
forth fictitious and imposter depositors in
place of real depositors. For withdrawal
they used forged documents and the
applicant as Counter Clerk used to accept
the forged identity of the imposters without
any verification with the original entries
fed in the computer. Thus he permitted the
withdrawal.
Thereafter
the
three
coaccused, the officials of a Bank used to
modify
the
entries
accordingly
and
thereafter delete the same. This obviously,
is
a
serious
white
collar
offence
considerably heinous with regard to the
fiduciary relation of the real depositors of
the National Savings Account and their
trust with the Post Office as well as the
Postal Employees. The said offences as
being prima facie revealed from the
prosecution case, the complaint and the
investigation by the C.B.I. that none of the
co-accused
has
suspended
different
liabilities born out of it. Their roles cannot
be assessed as lesser or heavier as they
have committed the offence in concert with
each other with a common object to give
effect
to
the
dishonest
and
illegal
withdrawals. If all these are proved by
evidences in trial, the punishment would be
severe, they cannot be placed at this stage
at different pedestals, even the National
Savings Agent, co-accused in the present
case are also liable to be placed on the
same pedestal along with the other coaccused.

27. This is a fact, important for taking
into consideration that charge sheet has
been filed on 30.06.2017, the learned
A.S.G. has not informed the court that any
further investigation either ordered by the
court are intended. It is informed to the
Court that despite the fact charge sheet is
7 All. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow
9
submitted, till today charges are not framed
by the Special Court. It is more than two
years elapsed from the date of submission
of charge-sheet still trial has not begun.
The co-accused persons namely Anil
Kumar Jain and Manoj Kumar Singhal
were enlarged on bail, the present accusedapplicant is in jail since 07.01.2020. Why
the charges are not framed by the Special
Court, is not reasonably explained. This is
certainly unreasonable and unnecessary
delay on the part of the Special Court,
C.B.I.

28. From the order of this Court dated
10.01.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no.8428 of 2018,
it reflects that stay of arrest was sought on
the ground of applicant's suffering from
Chronic Hepatitis-B whereupon for the
interim period arrest was stayed prescribing
time to appear before the Special Court for
moving application for bail. The fact of
applicant's
suffering
from
Chronic
Hepatitis-B disease is not controverted by
the State in his counter affidavit though it is
mentioned in the bail application and also
in the application for urgent hearing dated
16.04.2020 in para-3 of the written
submission, quoted hereunder:-

"That it is humbly submitted that
the applicant is suffering from severe
Hepatitis-B which if not treated at the
immediately may even lead to liver failure
or even cancer. It is humbly submitted that
the petitioner is the sole bread-winner of
family having a one minor son of only 1.5
years and a wife suffering from multiple
chronic ailments such as life threatening
gynecological problem coupled with stone
in her kidney and has been advised to
undergo surgery. The medical condition of
his wife is continuously deteriorating and
during this period of lock-down she is
facing a great hardship even for securing
her bread and butter. The medical
prescriptions of the applicant along with
the medical prescription of his wife, have
already been annexed along with the bail
application [Annexure-11 of the bail
application]"

29. Learned counsel for the bail
applicant in rebuttal of the arguments done
by
learned
A.S.G.
submits
that
on
30.01.2020 the World Health Organization
declared the Novel Covid-19 i.e. Corona
Virus as a pandemic which was specifically
recognized by Govt. of India vide Circular
No.212/MISC/PF/2020/SCA(G) issued by
the Ministry of Health, Government of
India, New Delhi. He further contended
towards the fact that deadly Corona Virus
has almost reached at stage 3 which is the
stage of community spread of virus, putting
the overcrowded places like Jails at a high
risk and inmates such as present applicant
who are already suffering from multiple
ailments as a result of which has very low
immunity, have more risk in general,
become extremely vulnerable at this time.
On the basis of aforesaid facts, he further
prayed to give him benefit of parity also as
other co-accused involved in the similar
offences have been given bail.

30. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid fact, the grounds and relevant
consideration while granting or refusing
bail it would be pertinent to refer here the
relevant para-24 and 25 of the Judgment of
Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad Vs.
C.B.I. reported in 2013 (7) SCC 466 are
cited hereunder:-

"24. While granting bail, the
court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punishment which conviction will entail,
the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of
the
public/State
and
other
similar
considerations. It has also to be kept in
mind that for the purpose of granting bail,
the Legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead
of "the evidence" which means the Court
dealing with the grant of bail can only
satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine
case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima
facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not expected, at this stage, to have the
evidence establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Economic offences constitute
a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail.
The economic offence having deep rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting
the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country."

31. It is important to reiterate here
that the role of accused cannot be distinctly
carved out in the case of conspiracy as put
forth by the prosecution, the other coaccused who are at par with the present
applicant and the nature of evidence in
support of the allegations constituting the
offences, with which they are arraigned, are
the same as collected and produced by the
investigating officer. The claim of the
accused-applicant for the benefit of parity,
as the other co-accused are granted bail is
worthy of consideration. At this stage it
would be relevant to refer the case of
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2018 (3) SCC 22 wherein the
Apex Court has described the factors and
consideration for grant or refusal of bail
and while considering the right to bail the
human approach is of essence, the Apex
Court has held that in jail due to non
adherence of the basic principle of criminal
jurisprudence regarding grant of bail and
presumptions of innocence, para-14 to 16
of the judgment are cited hereunder:-

"14. Even though the State of
Uttar Pradesh has been served in the
appeal, no one has put in appearance on its
behalf. As far as the complainant is
concerned, no reply was filed by the time
the matter was taken up for consideration
on 29th January, 2018. Accordingly, the
matter was adjourned to 2nd February,
2018 by which date also no reply was filed
by the complainant. As mentioned above,
no one has put in appearance on behalf of
the State of Uttar Pradesh to oppose the
grant of bail to the appellant.

15. Learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently contended that
the appellant had duped him of a
considerable amount of money and that
looking
to
the
seriousness
of
the
allegations against him, this was not a
case in which the appellant ought to be
granted bail by this Court. Learned
counsel supported the view taken by the
trial judge as well as by the Allahabad
High Court. He argued that given the
conduct of the appellant in not only
cheating the complainant and depriving
him of a considerable sum of money but
thereafter issuing a cheque for which
payment
was
stopped
made
it
an
appropriate case for dismissal.
7 All. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., S.C.B., Lucknow
11

16. In our opinion, it is not
necessary to go into the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made against
the appellant. This is a matter that will, of
course, be dealt with by the trial judge.
However, what is important, as far as we
are concerned, is that during the entire
period of investigations which appear to
have been spread over seven months, the
appellant
was
not
arrested
by
the
investigating
officer.
Even
when
the
appellant apprehended that he might be
arrested after the charge sheet was filed
against him, he was not arrested for a
considerable period of time. When he
approached the Allahabad High Court for
quashing the FIR lodged against him, he
was granted two months time to appear
before the trial judge. All these facts are an
indication that there was no apprehension
that the appellant would abscond or would
hamper the trial in any manner. That being
the case, the trial judge, as well as the High
Court ought to have judiciously exercised
discretion
and
granted
bail
to
the
appellant. It is nobody's case that the
appellant is a shady character and there is
nothing on record to indicate that the
appellant had earlier been involved in any
unacceptable activity, let alone any alleged
illegal activity."

32. In Gudikanti Narsimhulu Vs.
Public Prosecutor reported in 1978 (1)
SCC 240 in para-1 & 6 Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Krishna Iyer has observed as follows:-

"1. "Bail or jail?" -- at the pretrial or post-conviction stage -- belongs to
the blurred area of the criminal justice
system and largely hinges on the hunch of
the
Bench,
otherwise
called
judicial
discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic
and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the
order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is
one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which
insist that a developed jurisprudence of
bail is integral to a socially sensitized
judicial process. As Chamber Judge in this
summit court I have to deal with this
uncanalised case-flow, ad hoc response to
the docket being the flickering candle light.
So it is desirable that the subject is
disposed of on basic principle, not
improvised brevity draped as discretion.
Personal liberty, deprived when bail is
refused, is too precious a value of our
constitutional system recognised under
Article 21 that the curial power to negate it
is a great trust exercisable, not casually but
judicially, with lively concern for the cost
to the individual and the community. To
glamorize
impressionistic
orders
as
discretionary may, on occasions, make a
litigative gamble decisive of a fundamental
right. After all, personal liberty of an
accused
or
convict
is
fundamental,
suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of
"procedure established by law". The last
four words of Article 21 are the life of that
human right.

6. Let us have a glance at the
pros and cons and the true principle
around which other relevant factors must
revolve. When the case is finally disposed
of
and
a
person
is
sentenced
to
incarceration, things stand on a different
footing. We are concerned with the
penultimate stage and the principal rule to
guide release on bail should be to secure
the presence of the applicant who seeks to
be liberated, to take judgment and serve
sentence in the event of the Court punishing
him with imprisonment. In this perspective,
relevance of considerations is regulated by
their nexus with the likely absence of the
applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if
such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J.
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
indicated, when the crime charged (of
which a conviction has been sustained) is
of
the
highest
magnitude
and
the
punishment of it assigned by law is of
extreme severity, the Court may reasonably
presume, some evidence warranting, that
no amount of bail would secure the
presence of the convict at the stage of
judgment, should he be enlarged. [ Mod.
Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord
Campbell, C.J. concurred in this approach
in that case and Coleridge J. set down the
order of priorities as follows:

"I do not think that an accused
party is detained in custody because of his
guilt, but because there are sufficient
probable grounds for the charge against
him as to make it proper that he should be
tried, and because the detention is
necessary to ensure his appearance at trial
.... It is a very important element in
considering whether the party, if admitted
to bail, would appear to take his trial; and
I think that in coming to a determination on
that point three elements will generally be
found the most important: the charge, the
nature of the evidence by which it is
supported, and the punishment to which the
party would be liable if convicted.

In the present case, the charge is
that of wilful murder; the evidence contains
an admission by the prisoners of the truth
of the charge, and the punishment of the
offence is, by law, death."

33. Since at the stage of grant or
refusal of bail the detailed examination of
evidence and elaborate documentation of
merit of the case need not be taken, there is
a need to indicate such orders reasons for
prima facie concluding while bail was
being granted particularly where accused is
charged of having serious offences. No
doubt the accused applicant is involved in
offences punishable under Sections 120-B
read with 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471
and 477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read
with 13(1)(c) & (d) P.C.